“Yes, this is Vanity Fair, not a moral place certainly, nor a merry one, though very noisy.” (Thackeray xviii) It is here, in Vanity Fair that its most insidious resident, selfishness,-veiled with alluring guises-has shrewdly thrived among its citizens, invading, without exception, even the most heroic characters and living so unheeded that it has managed to breed monsters of them. There are those in Vanity Fair, however, who have heeded the vicious selfishness, and, though not having lived unaffected by it, were still able to point out its many evils. One such man is William Makepeace Thackeray who exposed this truth in his novel Vanity Fair: A Novel Without a Hero which was published in 1848. Thackeray draws upon the work of a fellow author, John Bunyan, in creating a setting for his story that allows him to starkly portray human egocentric inclinations the way he saw them, as he did with his character Becky Sharp. According to biographical accounts, Thackeray’s personal life may have been the basis for some of the elements in his story, particularly the love affair of one of his main characters, Captain Dobbin.
Thackeray, a gentleman by birth and education, would have had the opportunity to observe many different circles of society (Melani). As one critic, John Forster, wrote,
"Vanity Fair is the work of a mind, at once accomplished and subtle, which has enjoyed opportunities of observing many and varied circles of society. . . his genteel characters... have a reality about them... They are drawn from actual life, not from books and fancy, and they are presented by means of brief, decisive yet always most discriminative touches (Melani).” This may easily have been the reason why he was able to, with such knowledgeable dark ...
... middle of paper ...
...e all the same. All governed by selfishness, all looking out for ourselves, all, inevitably, monsters.
And who would say it? Only someone like Thackeray, who had been fooled by selfishness himself and yet scorned the folly of not admitting to its terrible power. Power, that would, if ignored, create monsters of even heroes. Such was the case of the citizens of Vanity Fair which Thackeray wrote about in his novel Vanity Fair: A Novel Without a Hero. In sharp contrast to the author of Pilgrim’s Progress, John Bunyan, whose main character unveiled selfishness’s disguise, Thackeray’s character, Becky Sharp, played right into its snare and did not realize it until it was too late. Thackeray sums up his novel with this last statement,
“Ah! Vanitus Vanitatum! Which of us is happy in this world? Which of us has his desire? or, having it, is satisfied? (Thackeray 678).”
Both Vanity Fair and A Room of One’s Own explore and challenge the idea that women are incapable of creating a name and a living for themselves, thus are completely dependent on a masculine figure to provide meaning and purpose to their lives. Thackeray, having published Vanity Fair in 1848, conforms to the widely accepted idea that women lack independence when he makes a note on Ms Pinkerton and remarks “the Lexicographer’s name was always on the lips of the majestic woman… [He] was the cause of her reputation and her fortune.” The way that a man’s name was metaphorically “always on the lips of the majestic woman” and how he was the source of “her reputation and her fortune” expresses this idea, especially through Thackeray’s skilful use of a sanguine tone to communicate that this cultural value, or rather inequality, was not thought of as out of the ordinary. From viewing this in a current light and modernised perspective...
A Feminist Perspective of Hero in Much Ado About Nothing Unlike the title of this piece suggests, Hero did not undergo her transformation in Much Ado About Nothing through magic. Rather, Hero was a victim of the double standards and illogical fears that the men of Shakespeare’s plays commonly held. The following quote sums it up quite well. In the plays female sexuality is not expressed variously through courtship, pregnancy, childbearing, and remarriage, as it is in the period. Instead, it is narrowly defined and contained by the conventions of Petrarchan love and cuckoldry.
In this world there are millions upon millions of people that roam around the earth in there own special, little life. Every person is different than the next one and he or she has their own personality. Each person also deals with life differently than the next. If everyone was the same, then we would be like one giant colony of ants. Just following the ant in front of us, and everyone looking the same as the next. Not having any of there own ideas or thoughts of what to do and how to do it.
Clearly a perfectionist in the art of deception, Becky Sharp, a young woman with serpentine sentiments, slithers her way into the aristocratic society that composes the hollow cortex of Vanity Fair. With unremitting cupidity, Becky exploits all those she encounters for the sole purpose of ameliorating her own situation, both financially and socially. Commencing her mission...
Loewen defines heroification as “a degenerative process (much like calcification) that makes people over into heroes” (Loewen 11). During this process, negative or controversial facts are often ignored or altered in regards to these heroes, which create “perfect creatures without conflicts, pain, credibility, or human interest (Loewen 11). When one changes or omits facts concerning figures in history for this type of glorification, we are left with an invented story of the event or person; in other words, history has become a myth. History textbooks are filled with these types of glorifications, especially older texts. The purpose of heroification is to present events or people in a favorable light and to give ideal role models in which to follow. In my own words, I call Loewen’s heroification an effective form of brainwashing. For example, I was always taught that the Civil War was fought to free slaves, but later learned this war was about states succeeding from the Union. Many people still believe the Emancipation Proclamation’s purpose was to free the slaves; however, it was actually the last resort Lincoln used to win the Civil War. Of course, this is not how these events were portrayed to most of us in History class. Heroification alters the purpose of these events so that we, as citizens, can feel proud that America did away with slavery because our forefathers felt it was morally wrong. Loewen also points out how heroification can lead to role models in the case of Helen Keller, “the blind and deaf girl who overcame her physical handicaps, as an inspiration to generations of schoolchildren” (Loewen 12). The problem with Keller being used as an exemplary model for American schoolchildren is that only her early life is portr...
Simply defined, happiness is the state of being happy. But, what exactly does it mean to “be happy?” Repeatedly, many philosophers and ideologists have proposed ideas about what happiness means and how one attains happiness. In this paper, I will argue that Aristotle’s conception of happiness is driven more in the eye of ethics than John Stuart Mill. First, looking at Mill’s unprincipled version of happiness, I will criticize the imperfections of his definition in relation to ethics. Next, I plan to identify Aristotle’s core values for happiness. According to Aristotle, happiness comes from virtue, whereas Mill believes happiness comes from pleasure and the absence of pain. Ethics are the moral principles that govern a person’s behavior which are driven by virtues - good traits of character. Thus, Aristotle focuses on three things, which I will outline in order to answer the question, “what does it mean to live a good life?” The first of which is the number one good in life is happiness. Secondly, there is a difference between moral virtues and intellectual virtues and lastly, leading a good life is a state of character. Personally and widely accepted, happiness is believed to be a true defining factor on leading a well intentioned, rational, and satisfactory life. However, it is important to note the ways in which one achieves their happiness, through the people and experiences to reach that state of being. In consequence, Aristotle’s focus on happiness presents a more arguable notion of “good character” and “rational.”
1. "My happiness needs no higher aim to vindicate it. My happiness is not the means to an end. It is the end."
Classical philosophers and rhetoricians theorized whether eudemonia was a matter of luck (up to the daimons) or whether humans in fact had agency. They also defined happiness in relation to an ethical framework, often requiring virtue as a prerequisite. My exam area reads into these many incarnations of happiness as an idea(l) that Richard Weaver calls a “God-term” in its “inherent potency,” woven deep into the fabric of our constitution with ‘obvious’ discursive patterns and powerful institutionalized effects. Materialized through discourse, happiness is necessarily relational and socially persuasive, imbued with ethical assumptions, and embodied in knowledge and beliefs. At times this awareness is either lost or left implicit, but by bringing this critical perspective to the historical trajectory, I situate distinct rhetorics of happiness.
In conclusion, i don’t think that we are happy. I think that most people just say they are happy but are actually discontent. The people I talked about in this essay show that today in our world we are not very happy. It is kind of scary to find out that you have to question if you are really happy. So ask yourself right now if you think you are happy, or are you actually sad inside.
“Monsters, in the language of mythology, were beings of unnatural proportions or parts, usually regarded with terror, as possessing immense strength and ferocity, which they employed for the injury and annoyance of men”(Thomas Bulfinch). This quote defines a monster and describes them as unnatural and often feared by the people they terrorize. There are many different types of monsters and all monsters fight different heroes, but all their purpose is the same, to strike fear in the people surrounding them. In Greek mythology heroes are often sent to defeat these creatures that are thought to be unbeatable. Heroes are often sent to beat these monsters as a way to gain passage to a better life. The heroes who fight with the monsters often have some divinity in their background. While there is only one type of hero, who in the end always wins and overcome the odds, heroes such as Hercules, Oedipus and Bellerphon, but there are many different types of monsters to fight each hero, such as the Sphinx, the Centaurs and the Chimera.
The world is a very complex system with over a 100 diverse cultures and norms. Religion, wealth, poverty, and political diversity pull us apart. Since the beginning of time humans were never similar for a purpose. What if we try? Try to find our differences more alike in ways we never thought of. What will happen when these views and perspectives coincides with one another?
"I am the wretch created by your beloved Elizabeth," cried the vaguely female wretch. "Elizabeth has passed the limits of the human realm and in her feverish pursuit of the essential knowledge of the world she has spawned the being that you now see before you!"
At the universal level, all individuals are like all other individuals in some respects. All human beings share common characteristics such as birth, biology, love, death, self-awareness, and language.
The title Thackeray chose for his novel Vanity Fair is taken from The Pilgrim´s Progress by John Bunyan. In Bunyan´s book, one of the places Christian passes through on his pilgrimage to the Celestial City is Vanity Fair, where it is possible to buy all sorts of vanities. A very sad thing happens there: the allegorical person Faithful is killed by the people. In the novel Vanity Fair Thackeray writes about the title he has chosen: "But my kind reader will please to remember that this history has 'Vanity Fair' for a title, and that Vanity Fair is a very vain, wicked, foolish place, full of all sorts of humbugs and falsenesses and pretensions" (98). The choice of title is appopriate, because in his novel Thackeray deals with people who put wealth, property, and a station in life before everything else - including honesty and love.
In few ways people are the same, they all share common humanity. People have human bodies and personalities, with thoughts and feelings. Yet in different ways people are totally diverse and unique, no two individuals are really indistinguishable, they can never have the same viewpoints, the same experience of life, and the same personality.